2 ms·

It's not just corporations. Science funding, generally, is far too tied to producing results that fit with the preconceptions of the group with the money. Combi

It's not just corporations. Science funding, generally, is far too tied to producing results that fit with the preconceptions of the group with the money. Combined with peer review being a frighteningly effective mechanism for enforcing the status quo, and it's unsurprising that once an idea is entrenched moving away becomes nearly impossible. The underlying problem is an insufficient diversity in sources of funding for science. Scientists are people, and most just want as safe a career as science allows, which isn't very safe at all. Rocking the boat is, for them, a bad idea.

jawns 12y ago
This was essentially the argument Bill Maher used to defend his anti-vaccination stance a few years ago: The government is heavily pushing vaccines, and heavily funding vaccines, and he doesn't trust the government. (Of course, one could counter that you don't need to trust the government to know that vaccines have demonstrable efficacy and a very low incidence of serious side effects.) It's also the reason why I was, at first blush, rather suspicious when the Gardasil vaccine came out a few years ago. It was heavily, and extremely aggressively, marketed. And I know that vaccines don't tend to be moneymakers in the way that blockbuster drugs are, but it definitely raised my eyebrows that Gardasil was being marketed so aggressively, because of the reputation of Big Pharma, where money often comes before ethics and due diligence.
fargolime 12y ago
Well put. I know someone who has elegantly solved five major outstanding problems in physics. The mystery of dark energy, one of the top 10 physics problems, is only one of them. But science is an industry nowadays, and there's no grant money in these solutions (indeed, grant money would more likely be pulled) so the odds of this person being listened to is nil.

jawns 12y ago

This was essentially the argument Bill Maher used to defend his anti-vaccination stance a few years ago: The government is heavily pushing vaccines, and heavily funding vaccines, and he doesn't trust the government. (Of course, one could counter that you don't need to trust the government to know that vaccines have demonstrable efficacy and a very low incidence of serious side effects.) It's also the reason why I was, at first blush, rather suspicious when the Gardasil vaccine came out a few years ago. It was heavily, and extremely aggressively, marketed. And I know that vaccines don't tend to be moneymakers in the way that blockbuster drugs are, but it definitely raised my eyebrows that Gardasil was being marketed so aggressively, because of the reputation of Big Pharma, where money often comes before ethics and due diligence.

fargolime 12y ago

Well put. I know someone who has elegantly solved five major outstanding problems in physics. The mystery of dark energy, one of the top 10 physics problems, is only one of them. But science is an industry nowadays, and there's no grant money in these solutions (indeed, grant money would more likely be pulled) so the odds of this person being listened to is nil.